Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
C7,I'm replacing the beams on the ceiling in my living room. Would you recommend staining them before I slap the varnish on?
 
NoahFence said:
Aside from the fact that it looked, sounded and acted nothing like a controlled demo.
Click to expand...

Sam.I.Am said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

“Men in general judge more from appearances than from reality. All men have eyes, but few have the gift of penetration.”

C7, or rather 9/11 conspiracists supporting the CD theory are the living, breathing, talking examples of this...
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
You still have yet to show why they would take water away from much higher priorities, to fight a fire in an unstable building, that was not a PRIORITY, that was NOT a threat to firefighters, and posed no significant value to the city. (the Verizon building did however have value to the FDNY etc.)

Care to take a stab at that? (BTW, you cannot prove this BS claim, no matter how hard you try, no matter what leaps you take. But, it's fun watching you bask in a sea of ignorance.)
Click to expand...


To support the nonsense that fire caused the collapse. Without the fires there would be no reason for a collapse.

You still have yet to show why they would take water away from much higher priorities, to fight a fire in an unstable building, that was not a PRIORITY, that was NOT a threat to firefighters, and posed no significant value to the city. (the Verizon building did however have value to the FDNY etc.)
Click to expand...

Questions that are supplemented with lies and exaggerations are difficult/impossible to respond to. I guess they are similar in intent as leading questions. Should they be tagged as misleading questions?
 
For Clayton Moore, saving lives is not a higher priority than saving an empty building.

For Clayton Moore, saving major communications infrastructure is not a higher priority than saving an empty building.

I'm glad that Clayton Moore isn't in charge of anything important because apparently Clayton Moore's decision making skills are severely lacking when deciding priorities. I'm guessing that Clayton Moore would probably go out and buy candy and video games with Clayton Moore's rent money if Clayton Moore's parents charged Clayton Moore for the space that Clayton Moore takes up in their basement.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Yes, anyone with 1/2 a clue would think that. However, someone with a whole clue would know that the building was not in danger of collapsing from the debris damage.
Click to expand...
There is something rather sad and pathetic about arguing with someone who persists in this manner. It is impossible to get a point from these utterly wrong statements, which you continue to repeat like a broken machine.
 
New YouTube Videos rebutting Richard Gage

Hi all,

I have a separate new thread about these YouTube videos, but I also wanted you all to know I am putting out some 22 new YouTube videos rebutting Richard Gage's Blurprint for Truth.

Here is the complete list of YouTube downloads so far.

intro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 2 Richard's ten reasons for natural collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5C8YiXHhE
part 3 history of fire collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 4 symmetrical/freefall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 5 lateral ejection of steel and squibs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2538YN1l1nA
part 6 pulverized concrete and steel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
part 7 eyewitness accounts of explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aB-Apjqef8
part 8 molten steel and iron in debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OxQ...eature=related
part 9 iron microspheres http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev48qEO9SyU
part 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpzRcYqlKQ
part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP8t45iGn8E
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1aWsQLqG54
part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD6pTOnbKEU
 
chrismohr said:
Hi all,

I have a separate new thread about these YouTube videos, but I also wanted you all to know I am putting out some 22 new YouTube videos rebutting Richard Gage's Blurprint for Truth.

Here is the complete list of YouTube downloads so far.

intro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 2 Richard's ten reasons for natural collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5C8YiXHhE
part 3 history of fire collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 4 symmetrical/freefall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 5 lateral ejection of steel and squibs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2538YN1l1nA
part 6 pulverized concrete and steel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
part 7 eyewitness accounts of explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aB-Apjqef8
part 8 molten steel and iron in debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OxQ...eature=related
part 9 iron microspheres http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev48qEO9SyU
part 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpzRcYqlKQ
part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP8t45iGn8E
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1aWsQLqG54
part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD6pTOnbKEU
Click to expand...


How many Zillion to ONE coincidences need explanation.

What a joke!
 
Christopher7 said:
One denier after another makes the same argument or asks the same question in a different way.

NIST was crystal clear about what their theory is.

Thermal EXPANSION pushed a girder off its seat and that started the collapse that led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

Their theory does NOT involve thermal contraction or structural creep. That is just a lot of denier babble.
Click to expand...

Care to speculate on why NIST would spend years coming up with a complicated false theory rather than saying that the debris damage caused the failure?
 
And just why are we supposed to not eliminate things for which there is no evidence? What kind of idiot investigator works that way?
 
Christopher7 said:
Yes, anyone with 1/2 a clue would think that. However, someone with a whole clue would know that the building was not in danger of collapsing from the debris damage.
Click to expand...
Balderdash.

All-steel structures will eventually collapse in a serious fire of sufficient duration. First week of Fire Science 101 stuff.

They just saw two other all-steel structures collapse due to a fire and the one that got hit with pieces of one of the towers was burning, creaking and obviously damaged.

No competent fire fighter is going to assume it is safe to enter. He is going to ask an engineer to put a transit on it.

In this case, the engineer Concluded that the building was unstable. They didn't have time to do an in-dept analysis. To determine with any certainty that it was safe would have required people to go in, and that was out of the question at that time.

Letting WTC 7 burn was the best allocation of resources.
 
leftysergeant said:
In this case, the engineer Concluded that the building was unstable. They didn't have time to do an in-dept analysis. To determine with any certainty that it was safe would have required people to go in, and that was out of the question at that time.

Letting WTC 7 burn was the best allocation of resources.
Click to expand...

The idea that the engineers would be able to get close enough to a burning building to see exactly how bad and how extensive the damage to the structure (which is largely covered by the facade, etc.) was, and do some kind of analysis on it to verify that the structure taking the additional loads was not being overloaded is just ludicrous. The fact that it was deforming as they watched it would be a HUGE cause for concern. The fact that the debris damage didn't ultimately cause the collapse, and that NIST determined that the loads had spanned the gaps does not mean there was NO DANGER.

If you are driving on an icy winter night and you come across an area with a sign reading DANGER BLACK ICE but you manage to drive across it safely that does not mean the sign is LYING to you. Sheesh :eek:


ETA: another word for Truther vocabulary:
dan·ger
   [deyn-jer]
–noun
1. liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
2. an instance or cause of peril; menace.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Most people recognize that WTC 7 imploded in the classic manner of a CD. Only fanatic government loyalists deny it was a CD.
Click to expand...

"Like a classical CD" except for.....

lacking weeks or structural weakening
lacking weeks of loading explosives in the structure
lack of seismic signature on local monitoring stations.
lack of sounds of explosions just prior to the collapse.
lack of any wiring, detonator remains, etc after the collapse
building collapse caused multitude of collateral damage
building had hours of large fires raging through it prior to collapse
building had significant damage caused by falling debris from another building
building had power and other utilities still live

besides that, yeah it was "just like a classical CD" just like a pickle is the same as a Volkswagen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom